EVE General Discussion

I hear ya and agree on most points but it's this very fine line between "legitimate griefing" and "outright bullying" that I am trying to define. When does repeated and specific aggression against a very small player band become griefing?

What I am seeing is a lot of "single person" references in the replies and we're really down to thumbtacks here. It's a specific type of player in a specific area. It is consistent in that those players who might "normally" fly said ship in said area are being denied the right/ability to do so. Sure they could go do "something else" but so could anyone else being "griefed"...

More to the point is that a single very large, very financial 0.0 enitity can remove the entire spirit of the "relative safety of empire" (I'll accept the finger smacking on this point) for a gain that is described as "economic" when it's fair to say they just want shitz and gigglez.

This is NOT a G**N bash by any means but please take into account that NO other alliance/coalition practices this behaviour.

Tolerated by CCP it may be but by my definition, this unadulterated bullying needs to be reigned in. I'm not asking for "fair" (it's Eve) but there is simply no counter.

And when there is no counter - it's a poor game mechanic.

CCP have had years and years to declare the suicidal targeting of barges to be griefing, and haven't. Many Hulkageddons come and go and still not a negative word about it from CCP. The Ice Interdiction is easily in keeping with the finest traditions of tear farming in Eve, and in no way counts as griefing under any standard thus far established.

If you want to mine ice, go to another region. If you want to mine Blue Ice specifically, stay vigilant in the belts as you do so. There is no reason you have to die to the Goons during their asset denial exercise. If you get destroyed, it's because you weren't paying attention. Is it griefing to bubble someone AFK AP'ing through nullsec?

In the first case, no, there is no line between the two — they're pretty much the same: when it is no longer about in-game gain, and all about making the other guy not want to play.

As for the second, unless the “band” is a real-world, immutable and unalterable attribute, never. It's about individuals, not groups. In fact, in those cases where it might conceivably be considered group-based, it falls under the umbrella of “hate speech” rather than griefing.
…which means it's as far from a single person as it gets. It has nothing to do with the person, but with a location and an activity. The goons have zero control over what single persons choose to be part of the targeted demographic.

At this point, someone will undoubtedly chime in with the bone-headed “oh, you think rapist victims choose it too” analogy, so let's just head that one off immediately: no, this is not like being the victim of a violent crime. It's like dressing yourself up in a raw-meat suit and run around on the savannah and then complain when you get mauled by lions: you know the lions are there, you know they really like meat, you know they maul weak and meaty things they come across, and thus any idiot can conclude that meat is unsuitable attire for savannah-running (and for extra measure, the lions themselves have been kind enough to put up big neon signs saying “numpties in meat suits, beware: we will eat you”). So it's really your (very very poor) choice if you decide to do that anyway…
*Smack* There is no relative safety! (sorry, had to be done… ).
Yes? So? As Malc points out, all they're doing is reminding these highsec players that highsec is not safe; that you need to be wary of other players; that they're in a non-consensual full-PvP sandbox where everyone is free to do what they want, including blow people up for using umlauts in local chat.
There is: don't fly an ice-mining ship in the affected systems. Or, if you absolutely, positively, really really really have to (to which I say really? expand your horizons guys… ), take the prerequisite precautions of tanking up, flying defensively, and gather intel. Welcome to the bighighschool league, boys.

Again, they're engaging in a standard resource interdiction campaign (albeit a rather incompetent one) for fun and profit. All of these are good things — yes, even the incompetence, because that adds additional fun for the spectators. It is basically what EVE was designed to allow and tbh, it's a crying shame that it's as rare an occurrence as it is. These kinds of things really should be encouraged and facilitated so they happen more often.
Aside from the fact that they can, want, and actually do enforce it…

…the point is that it's good to be clear that you don't accept griefing. And yes, there is griefing in EVE — it's just not same activity as many highsec dwellers have dreamed up based of on their unwarranted feelings of entitlement.

Really... when?
Ive yet to see that actually happen.
Kinda like how they dont seem to moderate Goons or CSM for that matter. Id join just for that honestly



Look at someone that cant read...
Oh yer a Goon. Makes sense then
What I was getting at is what the hells the point of rules you dont enforce or even apparently care about?
Read the forum rules some time then take a good look at the forums. Youll really quickly realize how much of a joke they are.

dont want to die, don't go to those systems to ice mine...

its not like they are tracking down specific players.... that is griefing, not killing ice miners.

Yes. If its not one character being griefed its A OK by CCP

Did a Goon really just agree it was bad game mechanics??

Go into amarr, caldari and winmatar space and count the number or ice belts that are under attack by goons.

This whole "F**king G**Ns are killing mah ice miner!!!11" stuff is awesome xD
I dont trade with isotopes or macks or anything related to this, i just get to know about it in the forums. And its hilarious. Keep up with the good stuff \o/

Says who?

Using your own argument, if non consensual PvP wasn't "supposed" to happen in hi-sec, we wouldn't be able to do it at all. It would have been hugely simpler for CCP to simply make us unable to lock each other in Empire than faff about with all this CONCORD stuff.

This supposition that Empire is "supposed" to be safe has come about purely because it has been a few years since any group has made the effort to demonstrate that it isn't.

People can make massive fortunes in Empire. It's not a ~specialrules~ newbie starting area. (The new player spawning systems have a couple of special rules about can baiting and such but that's all).

I'll try and restate The very, very obvious in words of one syllable, so that you can't possibly fail to understand:

That's not my argument. It's the fact they COULD that is at issue.

10-20k of 0.0'ers could effectively bring Empire to it's knees. If CCP won't stop (or even blink) at 2 or 3 major alliances and Gallente ice, when would they?

A total blockade on ice could be a serious setback to Empire. Would it have to be determined as being detrimental to game if it remained in force indefintely?

This op is effectively a salami slice and quickly (and far too easily) disregarded. What happens if it becomes the whole shebang?